SANTA ANA : Officials’ Reprimand Wrong, Court Rules

City officials violated a library employee’s First Amendment rights when they reprimanded her for publicly alleging that her boss was mismanaging the department, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Robert M. Takasugi ruled that city officials improperly disciplined Barbara Lambert following her comments to the City Council during a 1990 meeting in which she criticized library director Robert Richard. On Monday, attorneys for both sides received notification of the judge’s Nov. 23 ruling.

Under the ruling, Richard and City Manager David N. Ream are prohibited from disciplining employees for speaking to the council on matters of public concern. The judge also set a trial date in March to determine damages against the city, Richard and Ream.

However, Paul Crost, Lambert’s attorney, said he hoped to settle the case before it goes to a jury trial. Although the suit does not specify damages being sought, Crost noted that under federal civil rights law, defendants are liable for attorney’s fees “which will likely double if (Lambert) is required to litigate this matter to a conclusion before a jury.” Already those fees total tens of thousands of dollars.

“We’re disappointed in the judge’s decision,” said Assistant City Atty. Robert J. Wheeler. “We’re going to need several days to sit down and discuss our options, (which include) an appeal, or another option to live with the case and settle it.”

The decision on whether to appeal the decision or ask the judge to reconsider it will come within the next few days.

The suit followed an October, 1990, council meeting at which Lambert, who addressed the council as director of the Santa Ana City Employees Assn., alleged that Richard mismanaged the city’s libraries, sought “systematically to intimidate subordinates” and instilled fear in employees.

The suit was filed after Richard wrote Lambert a letter of reprimand for “insubordinate action” and for failing to use an established grievance procedure to rectify perceived problems.

The employees association was included as a plaintiff in the suit because the reprimand was an implicit threat to other employees warning against similar public criticism, Crost said. The suit originally sought to have Lambert’s record cleared but later was modified to seek damages for infringement of her rights as well.

Lambert, a clerical worker who has been employed by the city for 26 years, is now in the Public Works Department, and Richard, who has served as library director for the last six years, remains in that job.

Richard said he stands by his decision to issue a reprimand in response to Lambert’s comments to the council, which he characterized “as basically a personal attack.”

“I wrote a letter of reprimand for essentially taking a personal complaint to an inappropriate forum,” Richard said. “That’s all that happened. I said, ‘Hey, there are administrative remedies.’ She didn’t suffer demotion or loss of pay, just a memo, and she’s turned it into a federal case, literally. It’s out of proportion to the situation and unfortunate.”

Ream said that he had not seen the ruling and could not discuss it until he had a chance to review the decision.